Dismissed

Mutta Appala Naidu v. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology

Telangana HC9 Sept 2014WP/1004/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the grant of a quarry lease. The petitioner alleged danger due to the quarry's proximity to their housing colony. The court noted the lease area was different from the previously rejected one and maintained minimum safety distances, thus holding the grant legal.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

Mutta Appala Naidu Vs The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology — Telangana HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.1004 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the fifth respondent.

¶5

2. The first petitioner states that he had constructed a house bearing No.22-72 in Seshukonda Colony, Ramnagar, Yelamanchili. Similarly, the other two petitioners also constructed houses in the said area. The original lease of the fifth respondent for carrying on quarry operations expired on 20.11.2006. Thereafter the fifth respondent applied for renewal of the lease, and the fourth respondent after conducting enquiry submitted his report on 20.08.2005 informing that the surrounding places of Survey No.247 of Yerravaram and Survey No.1 of Yelamanchili Village had been developed with housing colonies and it is adjacent to NH A1, 4 line road and no objection certificate cannot be granted for grant of renewal of lease for quarrying. It was communicated to the third respondent. Pursuant to the said communication, the second respondent recommended for rejecting the renewal of the quarry lease application of the fifth respondent and instructed the fourth respondent to take necessary steps for stopping the illegal activity of the quarry operations. After considering the report of the fourth respondent, the second respondent submitted proposals to the first respondent for rejection of renewal of lease for want of public safety. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Yelamanchili, issued proceedings in Form 20 for removal of nuisances under Section 133 Cr.P.C. In spite of the said recommendation for rejection of the quarry lease, the first respondent granted lease in favour of the fifth respondent by proceedings dated 28.12.2007. The petitioners submit that the quarry site is about 20 meters distance of the petitioners’ colony and will cause danger to the petitioners. Challenging the grant of quarry lease in favour of the fifth respondent, the present Writ Petition was filed.

¶6

3. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioners are not the owners of residential houses at Seshukonda Colony, Ramnagar, Yalamanchili, as they have not filed any sanctioned layout and permissions for construction of the houses. The Tahsildar, Yelamanchili, vide his proceedings dated 03.08.2006 stated that an extent of 0.500 hectares in Survey No.247 of Yerravaram Village had been identified and proposed for quarrying rough stone and gravel to meet the requirement of the housing activity in and around Yelamanchili Town and there was no housing activity near the newly proposed quarry site in Survey No.247 of Yerravaram Revenue Village. The earlier quarry lease for rough stone and gravel over an extent of 0.500 hectares in Survey No.247 of Yerravaram Village was granted in favour of the fifth respondent by the first respondent for a period of five years vide proceedings 18.10.2001 and the lease subsisted till 20.11.2006. The second respondent recommended for determination of the above said lease under Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules), under public interest based on the reports of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yelamanchili, dated 13.09.2005 and 13.03.2006 on the ground that the surrounding quarrying area had been subsequently developed with housing colonies and the said land was also adjacent to the High Way Road and was not proper to continue quarrying in the said land. The first respondent, by letters dated 25.04.2006 and 29.07.2006, recommended to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, to initiate necessary action for cancellation of the lease under Rule 11 of the Rules under public interest. Meanwhile, the lease period expired on 20.11.2006. When the renewal of the lease came for consideration, it was rejected by the first respondent based on the proposals of the second respondent. But the area now granted in favour of the fifth respondent is different from the area which was earlier granted and the Mandal Revenue Officer mentioned in his no objection certificate that there was no housing activity near the newly proposed quarry site of Yerravaram Revenue Village and recommended for grant

¶7

of lease. The fourth respondent, by his proceedings dated 03.08.2006, recommended for grant of quarry lease and issued a no objection certificate. Based on the reports of the fourth respondent and the second respondent, the quarry lease was granted in favour of the fifth respondent on 28.12.2007. Thus, the area granted in favour of the fifth respondent is different from the area earlier granted to the fifth respondent and it is at a distance of more than 50 meters from any habitation. As per the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, the safety distance to be maintained is 45 meters, and the same is followed in the instant case.

¶8

4. When the petitioners filed a reply affidavit stating that the area granted in favour of the fifth respondent is the same area for which his earlier application for renewal was rejected, a report was called for from the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent submitted a report pursuant to the directions of this Court stating that he along with Surveyor and Mandal Revenue Inspector inspected the quarry area in which lease was granted to the fifth respondent, and it is situated in Survey No.247. The leased area is in 0.50 hectares. The area is surrounded by human habitation. The Seshukonda Colony in which the Indiramma scheme houses are constructed is very near to the quarry area. He filed rough sketch which indicated that the Indiramma Colony is at a distant place. But, the distance is not indicated in his report.

¶9

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the quarry lease was granted in favour of the fifth respondent for a period of ten years from 11.01.2008 to 10.01.2018, and is subsisting. If any action has to be taken by the respondents, they have to follow due process of law and in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. The counter affidavit filed by the first respondent indicates that earlier the fourth respondent recommended for grant of quarry lease in respect of 0.500 hectares in Survey No.247 in an area other than the present area where the lease was granted to the fifth respondent. Based on the said recommendation,

¶10

the lease was granted in favour of the fifth respondent. The constructions might have taken place subsequent to the quarry lease granted in favour of the fifth respondent. The first respondent in his counter affidavit further stated that the distance of 45 meters as per the Metalliferous Mines Regulations is being maintained in respect of the quarry operations conducted by the fifth respondent. In those circumstances, this Court cannot hold that the lease granted in favour of the fifth respondent is invalid. If the petitioners have any grievance, they are at liberty to approach the concerned authorities for taking appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶11

6. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 09.09.2014 vs

Mutta Appala Naidu v. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mutta Appala Naidu v. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailendrakumar Sahu S/o Rajendraprasad Sahu Vs The Government of a.P., rep by its Principal Secretary

Gosula Venu Madhav Vs The Superintendent Of Police

Sulochana Devi Sharma Vs T Narahari

Kandukuri Venkata Sitarama Anjaneya Sarma Vs Eluru Municipal Corporation

M/s. Sri Narasa Raju Modern Rice Mill Rep. by its partner Vs The Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

Kandukuri Venkata Sitarama Anjeneya Sarma, Vs Eluru Municipal Corporation